“Planck came up with a formula that agreed very closely with experimental data, but the formula only made sense if he assumed that the energy of a vibrating molecule was quantized–that is, it could only take on certain values. The energy would have to be proportional to the frequency of vibration, and it seemed to come in little “chunks” of the frequency multiplied by a certain constant. This constant came to be known as Planck’s constant, or h.”

“Einstein proposed that light also delivers its energy in chunks; light would then consist of little particles, or quanta, called photons, each with an energy of Planck’s constant times its frequency.”

The summary of this mental musing was> “Yes, I’m afraid it’s a bit more complicated than that. Some experimental results, like this one, seem to prove beyond all possible doubt that light consists of particles; others insist, just as irrefutably, that it’s waves. We can only conclude that light is somehow both a wave and a particle–or that it’s something else we can’t quite visualize, which appears to us as one or the other depending on how we look at it.”
Einstein sums it up well here >“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
In the GEA talk the question was posed; “is space making electrons, or are electrons making space?”
This is asking the right question. The answer is YES, not A or B but both. The universe is negengropic.
This is beginning to look suspiciously like the brain fart, the built in logic and perception flaw in the brain.
Posing a question as A OR B IS the logic brain fart.
“It is obvious that (whatever)” IS the perception brain fart.
I prefer to leave math and physics to those interested in such things as I consider them meta-concepts. But it would seem, in view of the brain fart, is that somehow the logic has to be worked both ways.

Phase and group velocities of three electrons traveling in slow motion over a distance of 0.4 Ångstroms.

Why not just say; “Dunno” It’s not A or B it’s “something else”. Planck is talking about a perception, Einstein is talking about an interpretation. Neither is talking about reality IE The big and little hoochie koochie. Both are stretching and twisting their rubber ruler trying to measure something ENTIRELY INSIDE THE SKULL. What Mr. Ted would call (local forcing) The big and little hoochie koochie (same thing) are outside. (what Mr. Ted would call spacial forcing)

Please note I am speaking only of the thought processes.

So the big hoochie koochie must be equal to all of the little hoochie koockies